TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arances made by the appellant to SEZ developers without payment of duty is clearance of exempted goods and is not covered by the exclusion clause 6 of CCR, 2004 - Held that:- issue stand settled by the decision of co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CCE Hyderabad (2011 - TMI - 208174 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) – assessee has cleared their finished product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity vide impugned order has held that as per Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant is required to maintain separate accounts for the common inputs which are used for the manufacturing of finished goods which are cleared on payment of duty and which are cleared by availing exemption. It is the finding of the adjudicating authority that the clearances made by the appellant to SEZ develo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries Vs CCE Mumbai 2011-TIOL-1412-CESTAT-MUM, has taken the view that the clearances made to SEZ developers are deemed export and are not exempt from Excise duty and hence the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has no application. 4. Ld.SDR reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emerges. a) For the period upto 9/2/2006, the supplies made to SEZ units are to be treated as export both for extending export benefits and for levy of duty in terms of SEZ provisions contained in Chapter XA of the Customs Act. b) For the period from 10/2/2006, the definition of the term "export" under the Customs Act is not consistent with the definition of the term "export" under the SEZ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly of exempted goods both to SEZ units and SEZ developers / promoters. e) Appeals of the assessees deserve to be allowed and the appeals of the Department deserve to be rejected. f) Incidentally, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of invoking extended period of limitation for demand of amounts and imposition of penalties does not arise. 8. As the issue is now cove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
